Mom Says Patriot Act Stripped Son of Due Process

[Goronmon]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/

But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.

Another write up about it http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w93.html

Definitely a scary situation to be in and it looks like the only piece of evidence is that the threat came from an IP address that matches his computer.

[Johan]

The Patriot Act is/was a fucked up piece of legislation, and regardless of whether it's Obama or Bush in office, the America I live in today is NOT the America I grew up loving and being proud of.

[Lance Uppercut]

The comments on that first link are almost as bad. People need to stop being so scared.

[Shrinn]

Kid needs to hook up with an attorney and file a writ of habeas asap. This is ridiculous but there are safeguards in this system for situations like this.

[Goronmon]

Kid needs to hook up with an attorney and file a writ of habeas asap. This is ridiculous but there are safeguards in this system for situations like this.I think the claim in the articles is that those safeguards are being ignored.

[Shrinn]

The only thing I really got from the articles was that mom said "There's nothing I can do". She should be able to file some sort of question as to the legality of his imprisonment, with Supreme Court backing, no less. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v_rumsfeld)

That case basically says that United States citizens cannot be denied the right to a writ of habeas because of the Authorization of Military Force Act or the PATRIOT Act. There's another one for Guantanamo detainees that I can't remember the name of yet. I don't know why she's unable to file those requests. That really sucks though.

[Kelegacy]

The Patriot Act is/was a fucked up piece of legislation, and regardless of whether it's Obama or Bush in office, the America I live in today is NOT the America I grew up loving and being proud of.

There is truly no country for old men.

EDIT: Just in case it's misconstrued, that's not an insult.

[Shadowstorm]

I am just coming in here to say fuck the Patriot Act.

thanks.

[Narradisall]

Yay for the Patriot Act. I'm glad our governments attempts at following these types of law have been half assed so you can only be imprisoned for 40 odd days with no charges....

[National Kato]

I remember the good ol' days when people were defending the Patriot Act because, of course, what do you have to be afraid of unless you're breaking the law?

[Ox]

Oh, sweet fucking Christ on a goddamned cross. Would someone care to explain to me how this person's due process rights have been stripped?

1. There was a bomb threat made. That's evidence of a crime.

2. The bomb threat was made from an IP address connected to the lad's computer. That's probable cause to believe he committed the crime.

3. Police obtained a search warrant pursuant to that probable cause.

4. Police executed that search warrant and arrested the lad.

5. He is currently held without bail, which is not that unusual for serious crimes.*

Would someone care to explain how any of this is a violation of due process? If he has an alibi (dubious, since the only indication he has an alibi is the unsworn self-serving statements of his mother), he is entitled to present that... at fucking trial.

Honestly, anyone who gives the slightest fucking credence to any of these allegations of wrongdoing is wholly ignorant of even the most basic aspects of American law. Consider this morsel from the Lew Rockwell article:
As of today (May 5), a criminal complaint in this case does exist, but Ashton has yet to be charged with a crime.
Oh, merciful Mother of God. A criminal complaint is the document by which one is charged with a crime. The above sentence is like saying, "He has a birth certificate, but his birth hasn't been certified."

Raw fucking insanity and FUD is all I see here. And I am astonished that none of you see it, too. This is easily the equivalent of saying the Internet is a series of tubes.

*Actually, the article doesn't even say whether he was held without bail. It's entirely possible he was offered bail but simply didn't post it. Oh, the humanity! Fascism!

[ShivaX]

Oh, sweet fucking Christ on a goddamned cross. Would someone care to explain to me how this person's due process rights have been stripped?

The due process whereby he gets away with it?

I didn't really look into it at all, but if what Ox says is right (and I'd assume it is), then I don't see how his rights are being denied in any way. The police had probable cause, got a warrant and arrested him for a crime. Its not like they snuck in without reason and kidnapped him and aren't charging him with anything.

[Goronmon]

Raw fucking insanity and FUD is all I see here. And I am astonished that none of you see it, too. This is easily the equivalent of saying the Internet is a series of tubes.I don't get a chance to be thorough about the topics I notice while I'm at work, so things can be pretty hit or miss as to their actual validity. Judging by your reaction, I'd say this one will be chalked up as a pretty big miss, haha.

[Ox]

Hey, look: I don't want to criticize anyone here. These articles were written by clever people with the formed intent to deceive people into thinking there was an issue, and it's hardly surprising that they managed to sucker you in. There's an entire profession dedicated to the art of making people believe ridiculous lies through misdirection. This is one of the many reasons people hate lawyers.

It irritates me, too.

[Johan]

The Patriot Act needs to die a horrible death. THAT is the news here, but that's hardly recent news.

[Shrinn]

I'm with Ox. Probable cause, evidence for a crime. And they claim the hearing was arranged for 10 so that the kid couldn't get a lawyer because no law offices were open? It's all ridiculous. Good or bad as the PATRIOT Act may be (and it has its strengths), it's not what is holding this kid.

Though I love his alibi of "I got home at 10:00, I couldn't have sent it by 10:05!" Because E-mail takes time and there's no such thing as programs/scripts to send it automatically when he thinks he'll still be out of the home.

[Narradisall]

I thought most the people posting just said sucks to the patriot act in general with little relating to the OP, so I don't think Ox needs to be annoyed at anyone here. Unless he supports the patriot act...

[Johan]

I thought most the people posting just said sucks to the patriot act in general with little relating to the OP,

Agreed.

Also, days off are nice. I'll be watching for government goons breaking down my door. ;)

[Ox]

I oppose people who hate the PATRIOT Act without having the slightest clue about its provisions. There's this widespread attitude that it has somehow radically revised the mechanism of criminal justice in America. The assumptions people have -- that it permits citizens to be held without charge, that it is widely abused, that it is unconstitutional in toto -- are generally untrue FUD. It's become a punching bag for every conspiracy theorist, not a statute.

The PATRIOT Act is a large and complicated legal apparatus. It has good parts and bad parts, like most laws. Put it this way: even I, someone with a modicum of expertise and an overdeveloped ego, do not think I know enough to pass judgment on it in its entirety. I do know, however, that virtually every overheated condemnation of the Patriot Act I have investigated has been revealed to be absurd bullshit.

National Kato referred to the old argument that the Patriot Act is nothing to be afraid of if you're not a criminal. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, this is a dumb and bad argument. But at least it was an argument. Very few people who oppose the Patriot Act have the slightest clue what it does or how it modified existing law. I treat such arguments with precisely the respect they deserve.

[Ox]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to emphasize one thing: people who reflexively hate the Patriot Act, which does seem to include everyone else in this thread, can be easily manipulated. Look how this alleged felon, who is being prosecuted entirely appropriately and is likely guilty, managed to stir up public sympathy for his situation merely by invoking the dread boogeyman's name. It is dangerous indeed that the anti-Patriot Act propaganda has been so effective that intelligent and generally thoughtful people even consider expressing sympathy for such a person. People talk about the Patriot Act being the outgrowth of fearmongering, but I shudder to think of what travesties of justice will occur as a result of the fearmongering about excessive government power.

[Goronmon]

Meh, the fact that the Patriot Act was name-dropped wasn't a big deal for me. I just thought the accused's situation seemed sympathetic.

[Johan]

Look how this alleged felon, who is being prosecuted entirely appropriately and is likely guilty

From a lawyer, and an intelligent man, this shocks me tremendously. If you're going to excoriate people for coming to a conclusion poorly and impulsively, without considering the facts, you might want to consider the reality that you have hardly had the opportunity to see facts entered into evidence; no more than anyone else, in fact.

You've declared his likely guilt based upon a flimsy web site. You have absolutely no idea of his guilt, and can only be correct in declaring that he is currently innocent, until proven otherwise.

[Ox]

Did I misspell something?

[Johan]

Did I misspell something?

Read my edit. :)

[Ox]

If you're going to excoriate people for coming to a conclusion poorly and impulsively, without considering the facts, you might want to consider the reality that you have hardly had the opportunity to see facts entered into evidence; no more than anyone else, in fact.
Eh. I know both parties agree that a bomb threat was called in from his IP address. I suppose they might agree on that without it being true, but I rate that a low order of probability. That stipulation is sufficient evidence for me to conclude he is likely guilty. What's more, I know that a magistrate concluded there was probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found within the house; while this is not necessarily the same thing as more likely than not, it does buttress the credibility of the stipulation.

You have absolutely no idea of his guilt, and can only be correct in declaring that he is currently innocent, until proven otherwise.
But what if he's actually guilty? Then I would be wrong to call him innocent, wouldn't I?

[Johan]

But what if he's actually guilty? Then I would be wrong to call him innocent, wouldn't I?

The only correct label for him at the moment would be innocent. He hasn't been tried and convicted yet. He's merely accused.

Come on now...I'm no lawyer, but even I know that. Stop goofing.

[Ox]

The only correct label for him at the moment would be innocent. He hasn't been tried and convicted yet. He's merely accused.

Come on now...I'm no lawyer, but even I know that. Stop goofing.
Johan, I have to give this exact same speech, like, every six months. I just did it a few days ago (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=248981&postcount=14). There are good reasons for lawyers and judges to sometimes presume or pretend things that may not be true, but we should all recognize the truth is not subject to legal finessing. Otherwise, it would be impossible to be wrongfully convicted: if you were convicted, you would by definition be guilty.

[Johan]

I just did it a few days ago (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=248981&postcount=14).

He's innocent and accused, regardless! :D

Also, the Patriot Act sucks. My supporting documentation is here:

:my opinion here:

[Deadend]

He's innocent and accused, regardless! :D

Also, the Patriot Act sucks. My supporting documentation is here:

:my opinion here:

I agree with your documentation sir.

The PATRIOT act is not needed for America to work and dresses up the starting point for a police state in such lovely words wrapped in red white and blue.

[Shrinn]

He's innocent and accused, regardless! :D


My understanding is that innocent until proven guilty is only supposed to focus on the burden of proof in trial. The state must prove the crime was committed. (EDIT MIDTHOUGHT: In ancient common law, it was the burden of the accused to prove that he was innocent, if I remember my readings right.) It certainly doesn't mean that we can't consider someone who was filmed committing a crime innocent until he is convicted. And it certainly does not apply to the public opinion of innocence or guilt.

[Narradisall]

If the due process is ok (as well as due process can be, no system is perfect), then why was the patriot act even needed? It has been used to hold people with little or no evidence. I consider all such laws with distain, considering similar scaremongering laws have been passed in the UK and proven to be abused I will continue to do so.

Hell opposition MPs have have it used against them.

Granted thats about UK law, but I've yet to see anything (feel free to show me some cases, and I mean that in a honest sense) that required the passing of this law.

[Ravenlock]

And, having taken a breath, The Internet retracts its argument (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/bloggers-tv-go-nuts-over-misleading-patriot-act-claim/).

The claim that the boy is a victim of USA PATRIOT, though, appears to have been cut from whole cloth. While there’s plenty to criticize in that post-9/11 law, it doesn’t contain any provision that abrogates a defendant’s right to a trial. It’s also not responsible for making it illegal to phone in a bomb threat. That’s been a federal crime since 1939.

The boy’s mother, Annette Lundeby, has even acknowledged in interviews that her son has been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made appearances in front of a judge. No military tribunals here. On Alex Jones, Lundeby seemed to more-or-less admit that the USA PATRIOT connection was something she dreamed up on her own.

<snip>...And that’s the potential irony of the bogus reporting around this case. If the boy has the airtight alibi his mother describes, we’ll eventually know it: no prosecutor will take a case like that to trial, and some federal agents will rightfully find themselves in hot water. The feds have had the teenager’s computer for months, and they certainly know by now whether they have the right guy or not.

But if he’s guilty, he’ll cop a plea or lose at trial. And then everyone whose been spinning this case into a tale of federal storm troopers abusing a draconian anti-terror law will have succeeded only in denying a 16-year-old boy the fresh start that the justice system would have given him.

Either way, the USA PATRIOT Act still won’t trump the Constitution.

The sad truth is, of course, there is more money to be made and more attention to be gained by spreading and encouraging hysterical overreaction on both sides than there is by quelling it.

[Goronmon]

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

However, I received a message from a source close to the federal side of the story who insists that the case against Ashton is a "slam-dunk," owing to information obtained from various documents and other sources. Without getting specific permission from that individual I can't share the details he shared with me. I have described some of them, in broad outline, to Mrs. Lundeby in order to get her view of the matter.

[National Kato]

Never underestimate the power of the Internet to blow something completely out of proportion. :)

[Johan]

Either way, the USA PATRIOT Act still won’t trump the Constitution.

That's right. We'll leave that to the Padilla case.

WOOPSIE! I think the government wiped its ass on the Constitution! Don't tell anyone! :hushed tones:

[Ox]

Granted thats about UK law, but I've yet to see anything (feel free to show me some cases, and I mean that in a honest sense) that required the passing of this law.
This was the first one (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0905/090505sanjuan.htm).

Then there was this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_Six).

And these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Seven).

These fellows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Jihad_Network).

I have others.

[biosc1]

Hehe...

Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/teenage-bomb-threat-suspect-was-an-internet-prank-phone-call-star/)

16-year-old North Carolina boy arrested for allegedly making a bomb threat against Purdue University had a secret identity as a superstar in an unusual online subculture, one dedicated to making prank phone calls for a live internet audience, his mother admitted Thursday.

Lundeby insists the “Tyrone” on the recording must be a different prank caller using her son’s online handle and e-mail address. “I’ve asked him about this and he doesn’t know anything about it,” she says. “There are other people who sound like him.”

What do you mean? He would never lie, right?

[ShivaX]

Sounds like a rock solid alibi.

"Well he has a history of making prank calls, but its not him, its just someone that sounds like him, has his email, uses his handle and did it from his IP. ZOMG PATRIOT ACT!"

[Narradisall]

This was the first one (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0905/090505sanjuan.htm).

Then there was this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_Six).

And these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Seven).

These fellows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Jihad_Network).

I have others.


Interesting reads. I found it odd that the first one was a domestic non-terrorist related issue. I was under the assumption (probably wrongly) that The Patriot Act was designed more from a terrorist monitoring prevention angle.

The Portland guys would have succeed if they had gotten the papers to travel and hadn't been returned to the US granted they were being monitored at the time but only due to being reported by a police officer.

Virgina one is light on details of how a case was built against them.

Buffalo one seems to have picked up the information from the enhanced electronic monitoring granted via the patriot act.

Having read through several other cases, I still have reserves against the US Patriot Act, as its powers have been abused countless times it seems. If the FBI and CIA can't use their powers responsibly they shouldn't have such unprecidented extensions of said powers.

[Shrinn]

The reason to PATRIOT act is so abused is because it's such a complex piece of legislation. I tried to read through it once and got lost in the text really quick. Even our resident Ox lawyer says that he can't give a full judgment on it because he can't fully understand it. If people think they have power because they misunderstood legislation, they're gonna take every opportunity to use that power.

[OUX]

Yeah, not sure what you guys are upset about. The article makes is sound like they are building their defense on the absurdity of the idea that the kid would make a bomb. I might be wrong, but isn't making a threat of that nature, regardless of your ability to carry it out, illegal? It also sounds like the agents seized everything that someone might have hacked (I really hate using that word) into so if that is true it will probably be found out.

[Ox]

Interesting reads. I found it odd that the first one was a domestic non-terrorist related issue. I was under the assumption (probably wrongly) that The Patriot Act was designed more from a terrorist monitoring prevention angle.
Smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash across international borders is hardly "domestic." Moreover, it is often, but not always, connected to terrorism.

Having read through several other cases, I still have reserves against the US Patriot Act, as its powers have been abused countless times it seems. If the FBI and CIA can't use their powers responsibly they shouldn't have such unprecidented extensions of said powers.
What makes you think the Patriot Act is an unprecedented extension of power?

As for abuses: I can hardly claim the Patriot Act has always been used perfectly. That's not a reasonable standard anyway. But you claim it's been abused "countless times." Would you care to offer some examples? After all, this thread started with a supposed abuse of the Patriot Act that has, upon mature reflection, turned out to be bullshit.

If people think they have power because they misunderstood legislation, they're gonna take every opportunity to use that power.
A fair point, and I wholeheartedly support simpler and more discrete legislation -- makes my life a lot easier. But this is a problem hardly unique to the Patriot Act.

[Narradisall]

Smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash across international borders is hardly "domestic." Moreover, it is often, but not always, connected to terrorism.


What makes you think the Patriot Act is an unprecedented extension of power?

As for abuses: I can hardly claim the Patriot Act has always been used perfectly. That's not a reasonable standard anyway. But you claim it's been abused "countless times." Would you care to offer some examples? After all, this thread started with a supposed abuse of the Patriot Act that has, upon mature reflection, turned out to be bullshit.

There is nothing that proves the smuggling was related to terrorism though, it very well could have been, but I read nothing to relate it to terrorism. The Patriot Act may very well be not entirely terrorist related, but I have high doubts that if it wasn't for 9/11 it would have been a great deal harder to make those changes.

Having looked through several pages (some more crazy than others), it actually seems to be rather well put that a great deal of the additions were unprecedented, such as the Patriot Act allowing interim appointees to Senatorial positions being able to serve indefinately by removing the 120 day limit. I did look to see if this had been done before, or how this limit came into effect but got lost in political/legal mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

Some interesting summaries here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act although I had to google the individual matters to get a better picture.

The particular case in the OP turned out to be bullshit, does that mean its been used appropriately all the time, certainly not. As you mentioned though, abuse of power is hardly specific to the Patriot Act. However, was it needed at all?

If it was to deal with a level of unprecedented threats to America, it should have had a limit on it, and reviewed along with the standard proceedures of electronic monitoring, detainment etc, and those laws either changed perminantly or the powers revoked.

I just can't mhelp but thinkg “Power is what men seek and any group that gets it will abuse it.” So far, unfortunatly, I've not been disproven, and plenty of people seem willing to allow these extensions to continue on unquestioned.

[Ox]

There is nothing that proves the smuggling was related to terrorism though, it very well could have been, but I read nothing to relate it to terrorism. The Patriot Act may very well be not entirely terrorist related, but I have high doubts that if it wasn't for 9/11 it would have been a great deal harder to make those changes.
Oh, I agree the Patriot Act was passed because people were afraid of terrorism and it was designed to target terrorists. I don't think it was designed to exempt people like smugglers, though: they are viewed as sort of a bonus.

Having looked through several pages (some more crazy than others), it actually seems to be rather well put that a great deal of the additions were unprecedented, such as the Patriot Act allowing interim appointees to Senatorial positions being able to serve indefinately by removing the 120 day limit. I did look to see if this had been done before, or how this limit came into effect but got lost in political/legal mess.
It's not "unprecedented", because when the country was founded, that 120-day limit didn't exist. Indeed, even with the 120-day limit, at least one federal court held that the Attorney General could reappoint the same individual as U.S. Attorney in the same district every 120 days, assuming the Senate was out of session. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 671 F. Supp. 5, 6 & n.3 (D. Mass. 1987). So I have a tough time seeing this as a dangerous and unprecedented expansion of federal power.

If it was to deal with a level of unprecedented threats to America, it should have had a limit on it, and reviewed along with the standard proceedures of electronic monitoring, detainment etc, and those laws either changed perminantly or the powers revoked.
I don't understand. The Patriot Act did have a time limit on it, which is why it needed to be reauthorized in 2005. There have been reviews of the standard procedures of electronic monitoring, detainment, etc., which is why we've had the FISA revision and the MCA. Some people think these revisions went too far, others think they didn't go far enough. What, exactly, is your objection?

[Narradisall]

Oh, I agree the Patriot Act was passed because people were afraid of terrorism and it was designed to target terrorists. I don't think it was designed to exempt people like smugglers, though: they are viewed as sort of a bonus.


It's not "unprecedented", because when the country was founded, that 120-day limit didn't exist. Indeed, even with the 120-day limit, at least one federal court held that the Attorney General could reappoint the same individual as U.S. Attorney in the same district every 120 days, assuming the Senate was out of session. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 671 F. Supp. 5, 6 & n.3 (D. Mass. 1987). So I have a tough time seeing this as a dangerous and unprecedented expansion of federal power.


I don't understand. The Patriot Act did have a time limit on it, which is why it needed to be reauthorized in 2005. There have been reviews of the standard procedures of electronic monitoring, detainment, etc., which is why we've had the FISA revision and the MCA. Some people think these revisions went too far, others think they didn't go far enough. What, exactly, is your objection?

I need to learn how to break down things into mini quotes to reply to.

I figured the 120 day thing didn't always exist, but I imagined it was brought in for a reason, and I from what I read there was really no explaination as to why this amendment was made, or indeed needed at all? Just a whoops byproduct of the whole thing?

To clarify, the Patriot Act covered a range of things from electronic monitoring to detaintment etc, right?

It was brought in to extend powers across the board as a sort term reaction to 9/11 and to give powers to prevent any repeats of that level of terrorism.

My point was the individual acts it altered, such as FISA and ECPA should be either updated to include these powers (as you said they reviewed FISA) or remove them if they are now uneeded. The need for The Patriot Act to be some all encompassing amendment to all these acts has passed (imo of course). I don't believe many amendments the PA made should stay.

But anyway, least I don't have to worry about it as I don't plan on threatening the US...yet...

[Ox]

I figured the 120 day thing didn't always exist, but I imagined it was brought in for a reason, and I from what I read there was really no explaination as to why this amendment was made, or indeed needed at all? Just a whoops byproduct of the whole thing?
Actually, there's one really good reason for it: separation of powers. A U.S. Attorney is an appointee of the President, vested with one of his most important duties: to ensure the faithful execution of the laws, including the criminal laws. He is the federal prosecutor of the district or state, the personal representative of the Attorney General and usually the highest Executive Branch official in the area.

Under the 120-day rule, though, federal district judges -- members of the Judicial Branch -- would appoint the Executive Branch lawyers prosecuting cases before them. This is a big deal, akin to the President choosing the Senate. What's to stop the judge from appointing a crony, or worse, a defense attorney? How can the President be expected to answer for the actions of an underling he didn't even pick?

To clarify, the Patriot Act covered a range of things from electronic monitoring to detaintment etc, right?

It was brought in to extend powers across the board as a sort term reaction to 9/11 and to give powers to prevent any repeats of that level of terrorism.
Yep.

My point was the individual acts it altered, such as FISA and ECPA should be either updated to include these powers (as you said they reviewed FISA) or remove them if they are now uneeded. The need for The Patriot Act to be some all encompassing amendment to all these acts has passed (imo of course). I don't believe many amendments the PA made should stay.
Yeah, I agree. But almost all bills are like that: the bill to revise the Pennsylvania criminal code also changed the tax laws, rules of evidence, and civil service requirements. The special appropriations bills for the war in Iraq also included stuff like declaring March 6 to be "National Bacon Appreciation Day". It's called log-rolling: legislators cut a deal -- I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine -- and to keep the terms of the deal both parts of it are included in the same bill.

Also, I may be being unclear on exactly how legislation works. Let's say FISA is on page 157, MCA is on page 623, and the criminal code is on page 1121. The Patriot Act says, "Go to page 157 and add this language. Go to page 623 and delete this language. Go to page 1121 and stick the word 'NOT!' at the end of it." When I open up the Federal Register of all the laws, I see on page 157 the new version of FISA. At the very bottom in small type, there's a list of all the times it was changed and by which bills, and if I do it online, I can link directly to the old versions of the law and see the bills that worked the changes.

This all may be confusing, so let me provide a concrete example. There will be no links, regrettably, since this is not free software I'm using. Let's look at 18 U.S.C. sec. 2339B, the crime of "Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations." It's a long bastard and very complicated, with elements, penalties, exceptions, rules for how it may be investigated, jurisdictional aspects, definitions, and sundry other stuff. At the bottom, there's this:
April 24, 1996, P.L. 104-132, Title III, Subtitle A, § 303(a), 110 Stat. 1250; Oct. 26, 2001, P.L. 107-56, Title VIII, § 810(d), 115 Stat. 380; Dec. 17, 2004, P.L. 108-458, Title VI, Subtitle G, § 6603(c)-(f), 118 Stat. 3762.

That's a list of all the bills that amended this statute. It was created on April 24, 1996, and that bold one right there is the original Patriot Act. The third date is the Patriot Act reauthorization, which amended it some more. Below that, there's an explanation of what these amendments changed about the statute; I won't reprint that here because the 2004 Patriot Act revision was bulky. If I'd like, I can easily click through and see where in the bill's voluminous text these changes appeared, or I can see time-capsule versions of the older versions of this statute. And if I go to the Patriot Act, find Title VIII, and scroll down to section 810(d), this appears:
(d) Material Support to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.--Section 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking "10" and inserting "15"; and

(2) by striking the period after "or both" and inserting ", and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.".

And there you go: one of many changes the Patriot Act made to American law. In itself, not exactly a sign of fascism, and in fact it seems like a pretty appropriate change (it changed the maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years and permitted a sentence up to life if the support resulted in a human death). Indeed, it's such a minor change, at a time when Congress wanted to make a whole bunch of similar changes, that it makes sense to lump them all into a big bill rather than spending hours and hours of voting on uncontroversial stuff like this.

Admittedly, I picked a pretty simple example, and there is stuff that's more complicated than this. But I think it illustrates the point: not every revision the Patriot Act made really needed to be its own discrete bill.

[Narradisall]

Why can't the bills just be updated and finalised in their own rights now? The PA was done in one mass to get everything through quickly yet efficiently.

Sucks if you provide information unknowingly to terrorists that results in someones death.

[Ox]

Why can't the bills just be updated and finalised in their own rights now?
Why would you? You'd go back and pass a law that says, "Remember that change the Patriot Act made to 18 U.S.C. 2339B? Yeah, we think that's a good change, keep it"? Is there some reason to do that?

And the "providing material support to terrorists" statute does require that you know or should have known the organization was a terrorist one, I believe. If I donate to UNICEF and UNICEF turns out to be an al-Qaeda front, I'm not guilty.

I am now a little suspicious that UNICEF might be an al-Qaeda front. It's just like them. All those kids on Halloween...

[Shrinn]

I was always pretty sure they were pedophiles. Halloween is the pedophile holiday and UNICEF loves the children.